Lockheed Martin’s new single-engine F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter is the latest Swiss Army Knife of fighter aircraft for the US military.
The plane, which is destined to replace
the F-16, AV8-B, A-10 and F/A-18, will be available in three variants:

F-35A: Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL)

F-35B: Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL)

F-35C: Carrier Based Variant (CV)

Lockheed is now proposing a fourth variant that it has been
working on for the past two years. The design proposal is for an unmanned
version of the F-35 that could operate as a hybrid -- that is, it could be
configured to either fly by remote or if need be with a human pilot in the
cockpit. Many have stated that the F-35 would be the last manned fighter jet
for the Air Force as the military has been pouring more and more dollars into unmanned
combat systems. Lockheed's proposed unmanned J-35 would bridge the gap between
the past and the future of aerial combat. From the Washington
Post:

The Pentagon, looking
to save money, has accelerated spending on unmanned systems since the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks. This year, it allocated $2 billion for unmanned
aircraft and millions more in the supplemental budget, compared with $363
million in 2001. The figure is projected to reach more than $3 billion by the end
of the decade. What has resulted is a hodgepodge of unmanned vehicles, such as
small, bomb-seeking robots that can be carried in a backpack, and airplanes
that provide surveillance for days at a time. The systems have become bigger
and more expensive in recent years, such as the Predator, built by General
Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., and the Global Hawk, which has a 134-foot
wingspan, comparable to the Boeing 737.

Lockheed has been playing second fiddle to other names in
the industry, namely Boeing,
when it comes to unmanned aircraft. The price tag of
the F-35 program has also ballooned from $201 billion to $276 billion. The price increase along
with the government's increasing fascination with unmanned drones is probably
why the initial order for 2,000 planes could likely drop significantly in the
near future.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C

What about the FAA tapes that are still classified showing the flight patterns? Firefighter recordings that state the fire was under control and "small." Firefighter recordings that are still classified that actually reached the crash area. The very fact that all of the remains of WTC were sent to scrap yards and not forensically analyzed. The fact that several of the named terrorists have been found to be still living. First and only time steel buildings collapsed because of fire.

The PM article addresses none of the above. Also disappointed the PM series does not have larger pictures.

What is there to forensically investigate in the rubble? Hell a number of peices of the WTC are still around, if you want to test them so bad go ahead.

What about the tapes? Government property that will be released in the future, they certainly don't "hide" something. Do you think the government if it was able to put thousands of pounds of TNT in the WTC without anyone noticing, would have taken down the few cameras on the route the plane was going to fly?

Isn't it interesting that "classified" material somehow is in the hands of every person and more incredibly it incriminates the government? First of all does anyone know the original source of the supposed fire fighter tapes? Second, they were probably talking about the stairwell area around them for evacuation and not the entire floor... I mean we saw it burning ourselves.

Where is the source for the supposedly living terrorists?

First and only time a steel building has been hit by a 767 with a full load of fuel onboard.

First , err i believe the government was implictly involved, not explicitly. But then i have a brain and i remember how pearl harbor was an "engineered situation", just like 9/11.. Ya think those schmucks up top don't read history?

Even if Leslie miscalculated the fuel or velocity variables, consider this... a US Bomber B-25 did run into the Empire State building between the 79 and 80th floors at 300mph. The fire was put out in 40 minutes and the building stayed intact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building

Yes, the B-25 is much smaller than a 767, but that is not the perculiar aspect; both towers have this gaping flery hole on their side. The south tower was hit much lower than the north. However, when both collapsed, they fell down very symmetrically just as planned demolitions occur and occured exactly the same. Yet, the South Tower would have had a greatly probability to tilt, lean, or hit another building since the impact was lower. You state that steel weakens by 50% around 648C. Focusing on the the physics, this would imply the collapses would not be symmetrical and have building distortion as the building heated up. Moving back to metallurgy, there was molten material flowing from the building prior to the collapse of white/yellow color being seen visible for up to one month. That is not Al, but some variation of Fe!

But this discussion wouldn't be complete without discussing Building 7 which is the only steel building in the world to collapse due to fire, again collapsing very symmetrically as in a controlled demolition. No asterick on this building saying it was hit by a plane, there wasn't any impact to it, just supposedly a fire internally that somehow started.

As far as i remember it was designed to be able to withstand the impact of a 707 with next to zero fuel on board and / or not moving at full speed.

Over half the mass of a liner is made up of fuel as far as I know.

Besides a dildo might also be designed to give satisfaction but it is not guaranteed.

Additionally you cannot really compare the the empire state building to the twin towers. Not from a construction point of view.

You say that the south tower would have a tendency to fall to a side.

No, the buildings weight were carried in the core. It was that which failed and pulled the rest of the building down with it. On the spot and centered.

You mention that building 7 like it somehow proves your case. Actually the way you describe it it just proves that the theory of jet fuel burning inside near the structural core is quite possibly correct.